arxiv: v1 [astro-ph.sr] 31 Dec 2016

Transcription

1 Solar Physics DOI: / Flux-Rope Twist in Eruptive Flares and CMEs: due to Zipper and Main-Phase Reconnection arxiv: v1 [astro-ph.sr] 31 Dec 2016 E. R. Priest 1 D.W. Longcope 2 c Springer Abstract The nature of three-dimensional reconnection when a twisted flux tube erupts during an eruptive flare or coronal mass ejection is considered. The reconnection has two phases: first of all, 3D zipper reconnection propagates along the initial coronal arcade, parallel to the polarity inversion line (PIL); then subsequent quasi-2d main phase reconnection in the low corona around a flux rope during its eruption produces coronal loops and chromospheric ribbons that propagate away from the PIL in a direction normal to it. One scenario starts with a sheared arcade: the zipper reconnection creates a twisted flux rope of roughly one turn (2π radians of twist), and then main phase reconnection builds up the bulk of the erupting flux rope with a relatively uniform twist of a few turns. A second scenario starts with a pre-existing flux rope under the arcade. Here the zipper phase can create a core with many turns that depend on the ratio ofthe magnetic fluxes in the newly formed flare ribbons and the new flux rope. Main phase reconnection then adds a layer of roughly uniform twist to the twisted central core. Both phases and scenarios are modeled in a simple way that assumes the initial magnetic flux is fragmented along the PIL. The model uses conservation of magnetic helicity and flux, together with equipartition of magnetic helicity, to deduce the twist of the erupting flux rope in terms the geometry of the initial configuration. Interplanetary observations show some flux ropes have a fairly uniform twist, which could be produced when the zipper phase and any pre-existing flux rope possess small or moderate twist (up to one or two turns). Other interplanetary flux ropes have highly twisted cores (up to five turns), which could be produced when there is a pre-existing flux rope and an active zipper phase that creates substantial extra twist. Keywords: Sun: flares Sun: magnetic topology magnetic reconnection helicity 1 School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of St. Andrews, Fife KY16 9SS, Scotland, UK 2 Dept. of Physics, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA SOLA: Zipper.MainPhase.tex; 27 July 2018; 10:04; p. 1

2 E.R. Priest & D.W. Longcope 1. Introduction The generally accepted overall scenario for an eruptive solar flare or coronal mass ejection that we adopt here may be described as follows (e.g., Priest and Forbes, 2000, Priest, 2014). During the pre-eruption phase, the magnetic configuration surrounding a solar prominence consists of a highly sheared magnetic structure, which gradually evolves through a series of force-free equilibria until it loses equilibrium or goes unstable and erupts. The eruption starts slowly and then suddenly increases in speed. Reconnection is driven below the erupting prominence, and the onset of reconnection is probably what allows the sudden increase in speed, since it cuts loose some of the overlying field lines that had previously been holding the prominence down.(other points of view include the suggestions that: eruptions are driven by Lorentz forces in the photosphere (Manchester et al., 2004); reconnection triggers the eruption (Shibata and Magara, 2011); and that reconnection is not necessary (Chen, 2011).) The magnetic field in and around the prominence may consist of a highly sheared field or, more often, it is in the form of a flux rope (a twisted magnetic flux tube). The reconnection has the effect of either creating a new flux rope or enhancing the flux and twist of a pre-existing flux rope (Gibson et al., 2004; Gibson et al., 2006), since this is a natural consequence of three-dimensional reconnection (Priest, Longcope, and Janvier, 2016) and the erupting prominence is often observed to be much more highly twisted than was evident in its preeruptive state (e.g., Mackay et al., 2010; Mackay and Yeates, 2012). Previously, there have been many numerical magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) studies of the build-up to, and initiation and evolution of, flares and CMEs (see e.g., Priest, 2014). Ways of forming a flux rope include flux emergence(archontis and Hood, 2008), flux cancellation (van Ballegooijen and Martens, 1989), quasiseparator or slip-running reconnection (Aulanier et al., 2010) and separator reconnection (Longcope and Beveridge, 2007). Possible causes of the eruption include magnetic nonequilibrium (Priest and Forbes, 1990; Forbes and Isenberg, 1991; Lin and Forbes, 2000), kink instability (Hood and Priest, 1979; Fan and Gibson, 2003; Fan and Gibson, 2004; Gibson et al., 2004; Török, Kliem, and Titov, 2004), torus instability (Kliem and Török, 2006; Török and Kliem, 2005) or breakout (Antiochos, DeVore, and Klimchuk, 1999; DeVore and Antiochos, 2008). In particular, physical mechanisms for the initiation and evolution of an eruption have been modelled numerically by Linker et al. (2003), Gibson and Fan (2008), Fan (2010), Karpen, Antiochos, and DeVore (2012), Aulanier, Janvier, and Schmieder (2012) and Titov et al. (2012). Also, the heating rate in flare loops produced by reconnection has been predicted (Longcope et al., 2010) and compared with Solar Dynamics Observatory observations (Qiu, Liu, and Longcope, 2012; Li, Qiu, and Ding, 2014). During the rise phase of a flare, Hα ribbons form, and during the main phase the ribbons move apart and are joined by a series of hot flare loops, whose location rises as the flare progresses and whose shear becomes smaller (Moore et al., 2001; Qiu et al., 2010; Cheng, Kerr, and Qiu, 2012). As a coronal mass ejection (CME) propagates away from the Sun, it may be observed as an interplanetary coronal mass ejection (ICME) or magnetic cloud (MC) SOLA: Zipper.MainPhase.tex; 27 July 2018; 10:04; p. 2

3 Flux-Rope Twist due to Zipper and Main-Phase Reconnection (Burlaga and Behannon, 1982; Burlaga, 1995; Lepping, Burlaga, and Jones, 1990; Lepping et al., 1997), whose structure is that of a magnetic flux rope (Webb, 2000; Démoulin, 2008; Vourlidas, 2014). Magnetic clouds possess a low plasma beta and a strong magnetic field that rotates in direction. Indeed, it is likely that all ICMEs and MCs consist of flux ropes (Gopalswamy et al., 2013). Initially, such interplanetary flux ropes were modelled as one-dimensional linear force-free fields or uniform-twist fields (Farrugia et al., 1999; Dasso et al., 2006), but more recently the observations have instead been compared with two-anda-half dimensional Grad-Shafranov models (Hu and Sonnerup, 2002; Hu et al., 2014). The lengths of such flux tubes have been estimated from measurements of electron travel-times (Larson et al., 1997; Kahler, Haggerty, and Richardson, 2011) to be usually between 1 and 2 AU (Hu, Qiu, and Krucker, 2015). Several authors have compared the properties of interplanetary flux ropes with those of the erupting flux ropes at the Sun. Qiu et al. (2007) showed that the poloidal flux (F p ) in magnetic clouds is roughly equal to the total reconnected flux (F R ) at the Sun (F p 1.1FR 0.8 ), which is strongly suggestive that interplanetary flux ropes are formed mainly by reconnection at the Sun during the initiation of the CME. Also, the axial (toroidal) flux (F t ) is less than the reconnection flux (F t 0.3FR 1.2 ). During a CME, regions of coronal images darken, a process called coronal dimming (Harrison and Lyons, 2000), and such regions are thought to map the feet of the erupting flux rope and the surrounding region, since the erupting/opening process would allow plasma to escape outwards. Qiu et al. (2007) found that the dimming flux (F d ) is roughly equal to the toroidal flux in the MC (F d F t ) (see also Webb, 2000). Hu et al. (2014)extended the analysisto more eventsand suggestedadivision into two possible types, which needs to be confirmed in future, bearing in mind the many different models that have been proposed (see, e.g., Dasso et al., 2007 for references). Hu et al. (2014) found in their study that the twist either decreases with distance from the axis or is fairly small and constant. Half of the interplanetary flux ropes (MCs) have a twist that is roughly constant and is small (1.5 3 turns per AU), whereas the other half have a higher twist (up to about 5turnsper AU) that is concentratedin the coreofthe flux rope.when the eruption is associated with a prominence (or filament), the mean twist tends to be lower. They also found that the sign of magnetic helicity in MCs is consistent with that of the flaring coronal arcade and confirmed that the poloidal flux in MCs is roughly equal to the measured reconnected flux in flares. Onepuzzlethatweaimtoconsiderinthispaperisthecauseofthesevariations in flux-rope twist, in particular what mechanisms could produce high twist in the core of some events but a low uniform twist in others. Another puzzle is an observational one that has been highlighted by Fletcher, Pollock, and Potts (2004) and Qiu(2009), namely, that the reconnection during a flare or CME often has two distinct phases with different characteristics (Yang et al., 2009; Qiu, 2009; Qiu et al., 2010), although sometimes the two phases overlap. During the first phase (the rise phase of an event), the flare brightening in Hα, EUV and hard X-rays starts at one point on each flare ribbon and the two points spread rapidly in the same direction along the polarity inversion line (PIL) by what we call here zipper reconnection. By contrast, during the main phase, the flare SOLA: Zipper.MainPhase.tex; 27 July 2018; 10:04; p. 3

4 E.R. Priest & D.W. Longcope ribbons move outwards in a direction normal to the PIL, by what we call mainphase reconnection. The speed of spread along the PIL lies between 3 and 200 km s 1, whereas the speed normal to the PIL starts very fast (at sometimes 100 km s 1 ) and slows down later to as small as 1 km s 1. Sometimes, rather than being unidirectional, the flare kernel motions are bidirectional in the sense that they may spread out from one point in both directions along the ribbons (Su, Golub, and Van Ballegooijen, 2007; Yang et al., 2009). Sometimes shear motion is observed, in the sense that conjugate footpoints move in opposite directions: at the same time, the angle between the footpoints and the polarity inversion line starts out small and increases as the flare progresses and the corresponding flare loops rotate. This, however, is different from the zipper effect of footpoints moving in the same direction that we are modelling here. Shear motion is usually thought to be associated with the progression of reconnection from low highly sheared fields to high less-sheared fields that we are describing here as mainphase reconnection. Various studies have been made of the spread of reconnection along the PIL (Vorpahl, 1976; Kitahara and Kurokawa, 1990; Fletcher and Warren, 2003; Krucker, Hurford, and Lin, 2003; Fletcher, Pollock, and Potts, 2004; Bogachev et al., 2005; Tripathi, Isobe, and Mason, 2006; Su, Golub, and Van Ballegooijen, 2007; Li and Zhang, 2009; Qiu et al., 2010; Cheng, Kerr, and Qiu, 2012). For example, Li and Zhang (2009) found half of the events in their sample have a speed of km s 1 in one direction (opposite to j ) along the PIL, whereas the other half have speeds of km s 1 that are either bidirectional (in both directions from the starting point) or are in the same direction as j. Aulanier et al. (2000) describe the 1998 Bastille Day flare, and suggest the standard 2D model that the formation of the flare ribbons is due to relaxation of field lines that have been blown open by an eruption. In our scenario, this only refers to the transverse motion of the ribbons, whereas the formation is associated with the zipping of a new flux rope (usually around a pre-existing one). Several 3D computations of flux rope eruptions followed by reconnection have been described, but none of them, to our knowledge, have focused on the difference in the nature of the reconnection and the motion of chromospheric brightenings during the rise and main phases of the flare. For example, Amari et al. (2003) model the formation and eruption of a twisted flux rope. They show that the magnetic helicity remains constant and describe reconnection in the main phase. Fan and Gibson (2003),Fan and Gibson (2004),Fan and Gibson (2007) and Fan (2010) show how eruption occurs by the kink or torus instability and how the reconnectionbuilds up twist in the flux rope during the main phase. Furthermore, DeVore and Antiochos (2008) model an active region containing a coronal null and show how multiple eruptions can be driven by the magnetic breakout scenario. Also, Masson et al. (2009), Masson et al. (2012) and Aulanier et al. (2010) have proposed that the flipping (or slipping) motion, which is a natural feature of 3D reconnection at a null point, separator or quasi-separator, can account for motion of brightenings along ribbons. This seems an excellent explanation for the shear motions in opposite directions reported in some flares by Su, Golub, and Van Ballegooijen (2007) and Yang et al. (2009), but this SOLA: Zipper.MainPhase.tex; 27 July 2018; 10:04; p. 4

5 Flux-Rope Twist due to Zipper and Main-Phase Reconnection is different from the case of zipper motions in the same direction that we are modelling here. New features we bring here are an explanation for the initial motion of flare brightenings parallel to the PIL and a suggestion as to how the structure of the resulting twist in the erupting flux rope arises and is related to the initial configuration and the two reconnection phases. Three explanations have previously been offered to explain the spreading of flare emission along the polarity inversion line. Bogachev et al. (2005) and Liu, Alexander, and Gilbert (2009) described observations of hard X-ray sources and suggest that the flare acceleration region is moving along the PIL (with which we agree), but they give no description of the nature or consequences of the reconnection. Des Jardins et al. (2009) modelled the topology of a flare with null points in which the hard X-ray sources move along a series of spines by separator reconnection. Finally, Li and Zhang (2014), Li and Zhang (2015), Dudík et al. (2014) and Dudík et al. (2016) considered flares without null points, but modelled the quasi-topology and the reconnection in terms of quasi-separator (or slipping) reconnection. Our ideas build on the two latter ideas by using concepts of magnetic helicity conservation to deduce the effect of either separator or quasi-separator reconnection on the buildup of twist in the erupting flux rope. We deal with separator reconnection, but, if the null points are replaced by weakfield regions, it simply becomes quasi-separator reconnection. In both cases, the reconnecting field lines experience flipping motions. We find that our model shows how zipper reconnection acting on a sheared arcade followed by main-phase reconnection produces a core twist of at most 2π inside a region of uniform twist, and this can naturally explain observed cases of low uniform twist. By contrast, zipper and main phase reconnection acting on a twisted pre-existing flux rope can naturally give rise to erupting flux ropes with high core twist. Section 2 describes the initial state of the model, and Section 3 uses concepts of flux and helicity conservation and equipartition proposed in Priest, Longcope, and Janvier(2016) to model elementary reconnection events of two types, namely a simple zippette between a pair of flux tubes in a sheared arcade and a helical zippette when the arcade overlies an initial flux rope. Such helicityconserving reconnection is also important in tokamaks and for heating multithreaded coronal loops (Browning et al., 2016; Hood et al., 2016). Section 4 presents the model for 3D zipper reconnection, both for an initial sheared arcade and for an initial arcade containing a flux rope, while Section 5 discusses the subsequent main-phase reconnection. 2. Setting Up the Model the Initial State Our approach is to set up a simple model to predict the twist in an erupting flux rope in terms of the properties of the pre-eruptive state by imposing conservation of magnetic flux and magnetic helicity and equipartition of magnetic helicity. In future, it is hoped this can be applied both to observations and to computational models. The extra constraint of energy was suggested by Linton, Dahlburg, and SOLA: Zipper.MainPhase.tex; 27 July 2018; 10:04; p. 5

6 E.R. Priest & D.W. Longcope Antiochos(2001) and considered briefly by Priest, Longcope, and Janvier(2016), but needs computational modelling and so is outside the scope of the present paper. When energy effects are included they may allow the thermodynamic properties to be determined and they also have the potential to provide extra constraints and so rule out some scenarios that are energetically unfavourable. L zipper flux PIL s w z w o w f main-phase flux (a) Figure 1. (a) The magnetic field lines of a sheared arcade viewed from above, whose footpoints are indicated by dots and are located either side of a polarity inversion line (PIL). (b) The flux regions viewed from above taking part in the zipper and main phases of reconnection. We consider first a pre-eruptive sheared coronal arcade, the shear of whose field lines decreases as one moves away from the polarity inversion line (PIL) (Figure 1a). The length of the arcade is L and its width is w f, while the shear of the arcade as a whole is s. We assume, following the standard procedure in the well-established magnetic charge topology approach(sweet, 1958; Molodensky and Syrovatsky, 1977; Welsch and Longcope, 1999; Brown and Priest, 1999a; Longcope and Klapper, 2002; Beveridge, Priest, and Brown, 2002; Longcope, 2005), that the magnetic field sources in the photosphere are modelled as a series of discrete sources rather than a continuous distribution. As an example, Figure 1a shows a set of four rows of four sources. If the discrete sources become continuous or are placed below the photosphere rather than on it, many of the null points and separators become weak-field regions and quasi-separators, but the nature of the reconnection is very similar (Seehafer, 1986; Gorbachev and Somov, 1988; Démoulin, Henoux, and Mandrini, 1992; Priest and Démoulin, 1995). We suppose that three-dimensional reconnection takes place in two phases. During the rise phase, reconnection starts in general at any point within the (b) SOLA: Zipper.MainPhase.tex; 27 July 2018; 10:04; p. 6

7 Flux-Rope Twist due to Zipper and Main-Phase Reconnection innermost field lines and spreads in both directions along the arcade parallel to the PIL by zipper reconnection (Section 4). For simplicity, we start by modelling the case where it starts at one end and proceeds in one direction. The flux that takes part in the zipper reconnection occupies two narrow regions either side of the PIL separated by a distance w z (Figure 1b). During the main phase of the flare, reconnection takes place by main-phase reconnection (Section 5), in which the reconnection spreads out laterally in a direction perpendicular to the PIL. The magnetic flux that takes part in this phase occupies two strips whose inner and outermost parts are separated by w 0 and w f, respectively (Figure 1b). As a second case, we consider instead as the initial state in Section 4.2 a sheared coronal arcade overlying a flux rope, since this is thought in many cases to be more representative of the pre-eruptive configuration around a prominence that erupts to give the flare or coronal mass ejection. 3. Elementary Reconnection Events 3.1. A Simple Zippette: a Single Reconnection Event of a Sheared Arcade Y Y r Y ^ t Y R θ 4 r Y θ 2 U l θ 1 X X t l θ 3 X t (a) X w Figure 2. The geometry for quantifying a simple zippette, a typical single reconnection event in the zipper phase of a sheared coronal arcade. (a) The initial configuration (XY ), in which sources X and X are connected by one flux tube (X), and Y and Y are joined by a second tube (Y). (b) The final configuration (UR), in which the initial flux tubes have reconnected to form a flux rope (R) connecting X to Y. This lies above a second underlying flux loop (U), which connects Y to X. Interior angles (θ j ) are indicated for both configurations. We assume that the zipper reconnection phase of a sheared arcade is composed of multiple individual reconnection events, called simple zippettes, between tube pairsofequalflux.figure2depicts asinglegenericeventviewedfromabove in which flux tubes X and Y reconnect to form a new pair of flux tubes, U and X (b) w SOLA: Zipper.MainPhase.tex; 27 July 2018; 10:04; p. 7

8 E.R. Priest & D.W. Longcope R. All sources, and therefore all flux tubes, have exactly the same magnetic flux, F. The positivesources(x andy ) areseparatedby somedistance l,while the negatives (X and Y ) are separated by a possibly different distance (r) along a parallel line shown here as vertical. The two opposing lines are themselves separated by a perpendicular distance w, and X is located a distance t further along its line than X. The figure shows a case with t > 0, but the generic calculation applies to t < 0 as well. Figure 2a gives the general directions of the flux tubes linking the sources initially, but, as we shall discuss in the next subsection they are made up of field lines that are curved and not parallel so that they can reconnect. Furthermore, we are assuming here in Figure 2b that R lies above U, since we are considering a scenario in which long erupting flux ropes are created. An argument to suggest that this is energetically allowable was presented briefly in Priest, Longcope, and Janvier (2016). The process of reconnection converts the initial configuration, designated XY, to a final configuration (UR) with a flux rope R above an underlying arcade loop U (see Figure 2). The reconnection process is assumed to conserve helicity, but changes the partitioning between self-helicity and mutual helicity. The selfhelicity of a single flux tube twisted by total angle Φ (positive for right-handed twist) is H s = F 2 Φ/2π. The mutual helicity of a particular configuration is proportional to the signed sum of its two interior angles, designated θ j in Figure 2 (Demoulin, Pariat, and Berger, 2006). One interior angle is computed for each footpoint of the overlying flux tube. When the flux tubes are separated and neither is above the other, then either may be selected as the first flux tube tube X has been chosen in Figure 2a. The interior angle for a given footpoint, the angle s vertex, is that subtendedbythetwofootpointsofthe otherfluxtube.apositivesignisassigned if the footpoints of that tube appear counter-clockwise when proceeding from the source with the same sign as the vertex. Thus, the interior angle of X, designated θ 1 in Figure 2a, contributes to the mutual helicity with a negative sign, since going from Y to Y is a clockwise direction when viewed from X. All angles are assigned values in the range 0 θ j π and the sign discussed above is used when computing the mutual helicity. For the orientations in Figure 2 we find mutual helicities H m XY = F2 π (θ 2 θ 1 ), H m UR = F2 π (θ 3 θ 4 ), (1) in agreement with similar expressions in Priest, Longcope, and Janvier (2016), who treated the special case (r = l) of a parallelogram. Having accounted for their signs in Equation (1), all angles can be found from the geometry of the figure. The angles in the XY configuration, shown in Figure 2, are tanθ 1 = w rt = 1 r t, tanθ 2 = w l t = 1 l t, (2) where we introduce dimensionless distances normalised with respect to the polarity separation w, namely, t = t/w, r = r/w, and l = l/w. The angles in the SOLA: Zipper.MainPhase.tex; 27 July 2018; 10:04; p. 8

9 Flux-Rope Twist due to Zipper and Main-Phase Reconnection U R configuration are tanθ 3 = 1 t, tanθ 4 = 1 t r l. (3) The figures depict a case where t > 0, so the overlyingflux rope R, is longer than U,andboth θ 3 andθ 4 areacuteangles.inspectionofthe figuresreveals,however, that (2) and (3) are valid even when t < 0, in which case at least θ 3 becomes obtuse (tanθ 3 < 0). Since the quadrilateral Y X X Y retains its orientation for all values of t, none of the angles change their sense, and expression (1) remains valid when t < 0. A reconnection event begins in configuration XY, with flux in tubes X and Y being twisted by, say, angles Φ X and Φ Y, respectively. The tubes U and R in the final configuration are also be twisted in general. We assume that the reconnection process contributes equal self-helicity to each, an assumption we call helicity equipartition. This means that Φ U = Φ R. The conservation of total helicity therefore implies F 2 2π (Φ X Φ Y ) H m XY = F2 π Φ R H m UR. (4) Substituting the mutual helicity expressions from Equations (1), we are able to deduce the final twist in terms of the properties of the initial configuration Φ R = 1 2 (Φ X Φ Y )(θ 3 θ 4 θ 2 θ 1 ) = 1 2 (Φ X Φ Y ) Φ m, (5) where Φ m is the twist contribution due to a change of mutual helicity. For configurations with the qualitative appearance of Figure 2, Φ m = θ 3 θ 4 θ 2 θ 1 is positive. This reflects the fact that configuration UR has a single crossing in the negative sense (Berger, 1993; Berger and Prior, 2006), which makes its mutual helicity negative [see Equation (1)]. A positive self-helicity, i.e., right-handed twist, is required to compensate and thereby conserve total helicity. In the special case when the quadrilateral Y X X Y is a rectangle (t = 0, l = r) it is evident that θ 3 = θ 4 = π/2 and θ 2 = θ 1, so that reconnection adds exactly one half-twist to each tube: Φ m = π. This startling fact is a natural and elegant consequence of conversion (with equipartition) of mutual helicity to self-helicity in the special geometry when the footpoints lie on the vertices of a rectangle. In this case, the initial and final mutual helicities of the two tubes become simply from Equation (1) H m XY = 0, H m UR = F 2, (6) whereas the sum of the final self-helicities of the two tubes becomes (F 2 /π)φ R, so that, when the initial self-helicities vanish (Φ X = Φ Y = 0), Equation (4) implies Φ R = π. This result was confirmed numerically in the three-dimensional resistive MHD experiment of Linton and Priest (2003). When the sources do not form a rectangle, then Φ m π, but we shall find that, even so, often it does SOLA: Zipper.MainPhase.tex; 27 July 2018; 10:04; p. 9

10 E.R. Priest & D.W. Longcope not depart much from π: for example, when L < 6 2 the twist lies between π/2 and 3π/2 (see Appendix). Explicit dependence on angles can be eliminated by using Equations (2) and (3) to give tan( Φ m ) = r l(2 t r l) [ ( r t)( l t)1 ][ t( t r l) 1 ] (2 t r l) 2. (7) A more tractable expression can be obtained by introducing the variable ˆt = t r l, whose geometric significance is indicated in Figure 2b. Using this, Equation (7) can be written tan( Φ m r l( tˆt) ) = ( tˆt 1 r l)( tˆt 1)( tˆt). (8) 2 The appropriate branch of tan can be assigned using the fact, established above, that Φ m π as the configuration becomes rectangular so that t and ˆt tend to The Nature of Simple Zippette Reconnection The way in which reconnection takes place in a simple zippette is by double separator reconnection. This process is more complex than may be at first thought, because of the nature of the topology and its changes, as has been discussed previously by, e.g., Brown and Priest(1999a), Brown and Priest(1999b), Parnell, Haynes, and Galsgaard (2008), Parnell, Haynes, and Galsgaard (2010), Haynes et al. (2007), Longcope and Cowley (1996) and Longcope (2001). Suppose we have two positive flux sources (P 1 and P 2 ) and two negative sources (N 1 and N 2 ), and that initially all the flux from P 1 links to N 1, while all the flux from P 2 links to N 2. The resulting magnetic topology is sketched in Figures 3a and 4a, as viewed from above and from the right, respectively. The flux (1-1) from P 1 to N 1 is separated from the flux (2-2) from P 2 to N 2 by a vertical separatrix surface (V) which contains two null points (indicated by large dots in Figure 3). Thus, the whole region to the one side of V contains flux 1-1, while the whole region on the other side contains flux 2-2. Suppose for simplicity that, in the final state when reconnection has been completed, all the flux (1-2) that goes from P 1 passes over the underlying flux (2-1U) from P 2 to N 2. (It is possible that such a state is not reached and that instead the final state has the form of one of the intermediate states, but we shall not discuss such a situation here.) However, the presence of some flux (2-2) from P 2 to N 2 and also flux (1-1) from P 1 to N 1 implies that the footprint of the topology is as sketched in Figure 3c when viewed from above, with the intersections of the separatrix surfaces with the photosphere indicated by dashed curves. The separatrix surfaces are in the form of two domes which intersect in a separator curve (S 1 ) joining one null point to the other and lying above P 2 N 1 but below P 1 N 2. The feet of one of the domes pass through the sources P 1 and P 2 and both null points, while the feet of the other dome pass through N 1, N 2 SOLA: Zipper.MainPhase.tex; 27 July 2018; 10:04; p. 10

11 Flux-Rope Twist due to Zipper and Main-Phase Reconnection N 2 2-1O N 2 P 2 P 1 S 2 P 2 N 1 2-1U S 1 S P 1 N O V U 2-1U O (a) Initial (b) Intermediate (c) Final. Figure 3. The topology of double separator reconnection during a simple zippette with positive (P 1 and P 2 ) and negative (N 1 and N 2 ) flux sources, passing from (a) the initial topology through (b) an intermediate phase to (c) the final topology. Null points lying midway between P 1 and P 2 and between N 1 and N 2 in the photospheric plane are indicated by large dots. The diagrams on the top line represent the overall topology, while those below show the detailed topology in the photospheric plane with dashed curves indicating the intersections of separatrix surfaces with the photosphere. (a) Initially, there is flux (1-1) joining P 1 to N 1 and flux (2-2) joining P 2 to N 2, separated by a vertical separatrix surface V. (b) In the intermediate stage during reconnection, there are two separatrix curves (S 1 and S 2 ) joining the null points (see above). Also, some of the fluxes 1-1 and 2-2 have been converted into overlying flux (2-1O) joining P 2 to N 1 but lying over separatrix S 2, underlying flux (2-1U) joining P 2 to N 1 but lying underneath separatrix S 1 and flux (1-2) that joins P 1 to N 2 and passes through the ring formed by separators S 1 and S 2. (c) In the final stage the reconnection has been completed and separator S 2 has disappeared to infinity so that no flux 2-1O remains and both nulls. In a vertical plane that passes through both domes (Figure 4c) the intersection with the separator is indicated by a large dot S 1. As discovered in previous numerical experiments (Parnell, Haynes, and Galsgaard, 2008) and analyses of topological bifurcations (Brown and Priest, 1999a; Brown and Priest, 1999b), it is clear that the path from the initial to the final state involves a series of complex intermediate states having the form shown in Figures 3b and 4b, in which the two separatrix domes intersect in two separators (S 1 and S 2 ) which link the two null points. The flux linking P 2 to N 1 consists ofa SOLA: Zipper.MainPhase.tex; 27 July 2018; 10:04; p. 11

12 E.R. Priest & D.W. Longcope V 2-1O (a) (b) S S S 1 2-1U 2-1U. Figure 4. A vertical section through the separator reconnection process during zippette reconnection that is described in Figure 3. (a) Two flux regions 1-1 and 2-2 filling the space either side of a vertical separatrix surface (V). (b) Separator reconnection at two separators S 1 and S 2 transfers flux between 1-1, 2-2 and new flux regions 1-2, 2-1U and 2-1O. (c) The final state possesses a separator S 1 and flux regions 1-2 and 2-1U in addition to the two initial regions (c) underlying and an overlying part, one of which (2-1U) lies underneath separator S 1, while the other (2-1O) overlies separator S 2. The two separators S 1 and S 2 form by a global separator bifurcation (Brown and Priest, 1999a) as the two flux surfaces touch and intersect one another. In the final state the upper separator has disappeared to infinity. During separator reconnection at the lower separator S 1, flux is transferred from regions 1-1 and 2-2 into 2-1U and 1-2, while reconnection at the upper separator S 2 transfers flux from 2-1O and 1-2 into 1-1 and 2-2. It should be noted that instead of regarding the flux sources for simplicity as point sources, we could regard them as finite sources or as continuous sources, so that the photospheric field is continuous. In this case, some of the null points, separatrix surfaces and separators disappear, but remnants of them remain as weak-field regions, quasi-separatrix layers and quasi-separators (or hyperbolic flux tubes) (Priest and Démoulin, 1995; Démoulin et al., 1996; Démoulin et al., 1997; Aulanier, Pariat, and Démoulin, 2005; Aulanier et al., 2006; Aulanier et al., 2007) A Helical Zippette: a Reconnection Event in an Arcade with a Flux Rope We assume that the zipper reconnection phase of a coronal arcade that overlies an initial flux rope Z is composed of multiple individual reconnection events, called helical zippettes, between tube pairs of equal flux. Figure 5 depicts a single generic event viewed from above in which flux tubes X and Y reconnect to form a new pair of flux tubes, one of which (U) lies beneath rope Z while the other (R) wraps around Z. This event is topologically identical to the simple case shown in Figure 2, except for the presence of the third tube Z. Since that tube does not actually participate in the reconnection process, it has no effect on the outcome. Thus, SOLA: Zipper.MainPhase.tex; 27 July 2018; 10:04; p. 12

13 Flux-Rope Twist due to Zipper and Main-Phase Reconnection Z Z Y θ z Y Y θ y Y θ y θ x Y θy U θ x θ x Z X X Z R X (a) X Z Figure 5. The geometry for quantifying a helical zippette, a typical single reconnection event between flux tubes X and Y in the zipper phase of a coronal arcade that overlies an initial flux rope Z. The initial and final states are shown in (a) and (b), respectively. The reconnection occurs beneath Z, and thus produces an underlying tube, U. The other tube that is produced by the reconnection (R) overlies both U and Z, and wraps one entire time around Z. The interior angles with flux rope Z are indicated. (b) X Z θ z all results from Section 3.1 apply equally to the present case, irrespective of the presence of flux tube Z. This fact is not, however, immediately obvious owing to the way Z appears to impose itself into the configuration, such that flux tube R ends up completely wrapped around it. We thus demonstrate our conclusion by computing the mutual helicities before and after the event. This also shows that tube R must end up above tube Z and must wrap about it once, as indicated in Figure 5. With three flux tubes there are three distinct pairings for which mutual helicity contributions must be calculated. When considering the pairs XY (before) and UR (after), it is clear that their topology is identical with those in Figure 2: X and Y are separate, while R overlies U. The mutual helicities are therefore given by Equation (1), with interior angles given by Equations (2) and (3). It remains, then, to compute the mutual helicity contributions from the other pairings. The interior angles for these pairings are shown in Figure 5, with natural labels θ x, θ x, etc. In terms of these, the mutual helicities of the initial configuration are HXZ m = FF ) z (θ x θ x π, HYZ m = FF ) z (θ y θ y, (9) π where F z is the flux of rope Z, and the positive senses of all angles can be seen from Figure 5. The final flux tube R connects footpoints X and Y by going over rope Z. The footpoints of this flux tube are used to compute the helicity, and they have SOLA: Zipper.MainPhase.tex; 27 July 2018; 10:04; p. 13

14 E.R. Priest & D.W. Longcope the same interior angles (θ x and θ y ) as used for the initial state. However, since the tube R wraps Z one entire time, in the right-handed sense, as well as lying above it, the mutual helicity is HRZ m = FF ( ) z θ x θ y 2π. (10) π Since flux tube Z lies above U, we must use its foot-points (Z and Z ) for the interior angles to compute the mutual helicity of UZ HUZ m = FF ) z (θ z θ z, (11) π with a sign change due to the senses of the angles. The interior angles of the quadrilateral X Z Y Z must sum to 2π, so it follows that θ z θ z = 2π θ x θ y, which implies that HUZ m = FF ( ) z θ x θ y 2π. (12) π We therefore see that the mutual helicity contributions of Z, albeit non-trivial, do not change through the reconnection process H m XZ Hm Y Z = Hm RZ Hm UZ. Had we stipulated at the outset that flux tube Z cannot affect the result, the foregoing logic would have led us to the realization that in order for one of the resulting flux tubes (U) to lie underneath Z, it is necessary for the other to not only overlie it, but also to wrap that tube once completely in the right-handed sense. Following the same logic, we can generalize to the case where flux ropes X and Y initially wrap around Z some numbers, N x and N y, of times, respectively, in the right-hand sense. This would add 2πN x and 2πN y to the angles in the mutual helicities of Equation (9). If flux rope U does not wrap Z, then flux rope R must wrap it a total of N x N y 1 times in order to conserve mutual helicity. The presence of flux rope Z does not, therefore, affect the change in mutual helicity during the reconnection event. Nor does it affect the change in selfhelicity since its twist and its flux are preserved during the process. The only changes are therefore those same changes accounted for in Section 3.1. As a result, flux ropes R and U have identical twists. That twist is the mean, (Φ X Φ Y )/2, plus a contribution due to the reconnection given by Equations (7) or (8). Thus, flux rope R has internal twist in addition to being wrapped around Z. The reconnection, however, creates a composite structure (consisting of the sum of R and Z) whose self-helicity combines self and mutual contributions of its components. Suppose we combine the new flux rope (R) and the initial one (Z) to give an erupting flux rope of flux F ER = F F Z. (13) SOLA: Zipper.MainPhase.tex; 27 July 2018; 10:04; p. 14

15 Flux-Rope Twist due to Zipper and Main-Phase Reconnection The twist (Φ ER ) of this composite structure is determined by the fact that its self-helicity should be the sum of the self-helicities of R and Z together with their mutual helicity (HRZ m ) from Equation (10), namely, so that Φ ER F 2 ER 2π = Φ RF 2 2π Φ ZFZ 2 FF Z 2π π (θ x θ y 2π), (14) Φ ER = Φ RF 2 Φ Z FZ 2 2FF Z(θ x θ y 2π) FER 2. (15) If, as an example, we adopt the typical values F = F Z, θ x = θ y = π/2, and Φ R = π, then Φ ER = Φ Z 7π, (16) 4 so that the net twist is roughly a quarter of the initial twist plus one turn, which is what one would guess qualitatively from Figure D Zipper Reconnection Phase We assume that the zipper reconnection phase is composed of multiple individual reconnection events between tube pairs of equal flux. When the initial state is a sheared arcade these elementary events are simple zippettes (Figure 2) as analysed in Section 3.1, whereas when the initial state includes a flux rope they are helical zippettes (Figure 5) as described in Section Zipper Reconnection in a Sheared Arcade L D D D D (a) (b) (c) (d) D C B A wz C B A s L/3 D D B C C R L/3 A 1 B B A C Figure 6. A sequence of zippettes for zipper reconnection in a sheared arcade consisting of N = 4 flux tubes. In the initial state (a) all flux tubes (thick solid lines) are parallel, connecting sources A A, etc. The reconnection sequence consists of 3 individual reconnection zippettes (b) (d). The tubes just eliminated by reconnection are depicted by thin dashed lines. The overlying twisted flux tube is designated R, and the reconnected arcade tube generated in reconnection event n is designated with that number, i.e. 1, 2, or 3. A 2 R 1 C B A D C B A 2 3 R 1 C B A zipper SOLA: Zipper.MainPhase.tex; 27 July 2018; 10:04; p. 15

16 E.R. Priest & D.W. Longcope The zipper reconnection occurs between two rows of N identical, equallyspaced sources arranged along parallel lines of length L, separated by w = w z. The N positive sources are denoted by A, B, C, etc., and the N negative sources, A, B, C, etc., as depicted in Figure 6. The initial arcade is sheared by s = s/w z bydisplacingtheentirerowofnegativesourcesnorthwardadistance s. For illustration Figure 6 shows the N = 4 case with s > 0, but our calculation is equally valid when s < 0. Both lines of N sources extend a distance L, and are therefore spaced by L/(N 1). The initial state is an arcade of N flux tubes, A A, B B, C C, etc. We assume all have the same initial twist, Φ 0 : for the most part, we naturally assume Φ 0 = 0 for our basic analysis, but we include it here for completeness. The reconnection occurs in a sequence of individual zippette events. The n th zippette produces new flux tubes with identical twist (thanks to helicity equipartition), which we designate Φ n. We begin by considering a sequence whose first event is at the southern (lower) end, between A A and B B, producing an overlying flux rope A B and a twisted arcade tube B A ; these are designated R and 1 in Figure 6b, and each has twist Φ 1. Each subsequent event reconnects the twisted flux rope anchored at A, denoted R in Figure 6, with an unreconnected tube in the arcade. In this way the reconnection spreads along the arcade with its right-hand footpoint sweeping northward along the negative polarity line like a zipper. It terminates after N 1 events, leaving an overlying flux rope connecting the southern-most positive source (A ) to the northern-most negative source (D in Figure 6). The arcade has thus been reduced in flux by a factor (N 1)/N. In the case shown, the arcade s shear has been reduced, but, if s were negative, the process would have increased the magnitude of the arcade s shear. We apply the general formulation from Section 3.1 to the first reconnection zippette by associating the generic tube X X with A A and Y Y with B B. Those assignments lead to t = s = s/w z, r = l = L/3, and thus ˆt = s, for the case N = 4 shown in Figure 6. Using these assignments in the general expression (8) yields the first twist increment as tan( Φ m 1 ) = 2 L 2 s 9( s 2 1) 2 ( s 2 1) L 2. (17) Since both initial flux tubes have initial flux Φ X = Φ Y = Φ 0, the twist in the overlying flux rope (A B ) is Φ 1 = Φ 0 Φ m 1. (18) This is also the twist in region L, which is B A. Since that region reconnects no further, that twist value remains in that flux tube. It can be shown from Equation (17) that, when s > 0 then 0 < Φ m 1 < π, whereas when s < 0 then π < Φ m 1 < 2π (see Appendix). The second reconnection zippette occurs between the overlying flux rope A B with twist Φ 1 and the next arcade tube in line C C (see Figure 6c). We apply the generic result by associating X X with tube A B and Y Y with C C. The generic variables then take the values l = 2 L/3, r = L/3, SOLA: Zipper.MainPhase.tex; 27 July 2018; 10:04; p. 16

17 Flux-Rope Twist due to Zipper and Main-Phase Reconnection t = s L/3, and therefore ˆt = s. Making these substitutions in Equation (8) gives tan( Φ m 2 L 2 (6 s L) 2 ) = (9 s 2 3 L s 2 L 2 9)(3 s 2 L s 3 ) 3(6 s L). (19) 2 Since flux tube C C has twist Φ Y = Φ 0, the twist in the new overlying flux tube, A C, is Φ 2 = 1 2 (Φ 0 Φ 1 ) Φ m 2 = Φ Φm 1 Φ m 2, (20) where the final expression results after substituting from Equation(18). The selfhelicity from the first-generation flux rope (Φ 1 ) is equally divided between the two tubes produced in the reconnection, designated R and 2 in Figure 6c. Only half of the reconnection-created twist ( Φ m 1 ) ends up in the second-generation flux rope. Repeating this procedure one more time yields the twist Φ 3 in the final overlying flux tube A D. The left panel in Figure 7 plots this value, as well as Φ 1 and Φ 2, for the case L = 3, Φ 0 = 0, for a range of values of s, both positive and negative. Note that the twist in the rope increases with each reconnection event. This is natural since each reconnection event introduces a new crossing into the configuration and thus contributes a typical twist of Φ m n π (although it can lie between 0 and 2π, see Appendix). This does not, however, lead to a final twist Φ 3 3π, since at each stage the flux rope loses half its accumulated twist to the newly created arcade loop. In Figure 7, the graph of the rope twist (Φ 1 ) after the first zippette from Equation (17) is antisymmetric about s = 0 relative to π. It shows a twist of π for s = 0 and a twist that is larger for s < 0 but smaller for s > 0 and that tends to π as s tends to infinity. This may be understood from the symmetric location of the sources when s = 0, since conservation and equipartition of magnetic helicity then imply that the reconnection adds exactly half a turn of twist. For s = 0, Figure 6 has A, B, C and D lying directly opposite A, B, C and D, so that the tangent of the first twist decrement (tan Φ m 1 ) vanishes from Equation (17) and Φ m 1 = π. When s < 0 the negative sources lie below their partners and the overlying reconnected rope A B is shorter than when s > 0. This results in greater twist when the shear is negative than for an equivalent positive shear. Furthermore, the antisymmetric property (evident in Equation (17)) arises from the antisymmetric nature of the setup for the first zippette. However, the asymmetry is lost after the second and subsequent reconnections, where tan Φ m n 0 when s = 0 and Φ 2 tends to 3π/2 as s tends to infinity. This can be seen from Equation (19) and Figure 7. It arises from a comparison of the geometry of Figure 6 when s < 0 and s > 0. Thus, since the reconnection is proceeding in the direction from B to C to D, after the second reconnection the geometrical location of the reconnected rope is no longer antisymmetric. SOLA: Zipper.MainPhase.tex; 27 July 2018; 10:04; p. 17

18 E.R. Priest & D.W. Longcope The same procedurecan be applied to cases with moreflux tubes in the initial arcade. The twist in the rope after its n th zippette is Φ n = 1 2 Φ Φ n 1 Φ m n. (21) The rightpanel offigure 7 showsall twist values for the case with N = 8, L = 5, and Φ 0 = 0. It appears that, for cases when s L, this approaches an upper bound of Φ n 2π. This is the asymptotic fixed point for relation (21) when Φ m n π. Figure 7. Twist values in each of the newly reconnected sections, and in the final flux rope, for the zipper phases as a function of shear s = s/w z for two different cases, both involving initially untwisted flux ropes (Φ 0 = 0). Left: an arcade of length L = 3w z, resolved into N = 4 components. Right: an arcade of length L = 5w z, resolved into N = 8 components Zipper Reconnection in an Arcade Overlying a Flux Rope Consider next zipper reconnection in an arcade that initially overlies a flux rope of twist Φ r, say (Figure 8). In this case it occurs by a series of helical zippettes as described in Section 3.3, but the surprising result there was that the initial flux rope does not affect the twists or helicity of the tubes that participate in the reconnection. Thus, the twist in the core of the resulting flux rope is the same as in the initial flux rope (Φ r ), and it is surrounded by a sheath with the twist that is calculated in Figure 7. Note that, after the first zippette, each of the n 1 subsequent zippette reconnectionsadds no flux to the new flux rope R but adds an extraturn of twist to the composite structure. Thus, suppose that, as in Section 3.3, we combine the new flux rope (R) and the initial one (Z) to give an erupting flux rope of SOLA: Zipper.MainPhase.tex; 27 July 2018; 10:04; p. 18

19 Flux-Rope Twist due to Zipper and Main-Phase Reconnection L (a) Z (b) Z (c) D D D C B A Z Z Z C B A D C B s L/3 A Z 1 R Z C B A L/3 D C B A Z Z 2 1 R Z Z D C B A (d) D C B A Z R Z R Z Z D C B A w z Figure 8. A sequence of helical zippettes for zipper reconnection in an arcade containing an initial flux rope and consisting of N = 4 flux tubes. In the initial state (a) all flux tubes (thick solid lines) are parallel, connecting sources A A, etc. These overlie the pre-existing flux rope Z connecting Z Z. The reconnection sequence consists of 3 individual reconnection events (b) (d). The overlying twisted flux tube is designated R, and the reconnected arcade tube generated in reconnection event n is designated with that number, i.e. 1, 2, or 3. flux F ER = F F Z (22) and twist Φ ER, which is determined by the fact that its self-helicity is the sum of the self- and mutual helicities of R and Z. The resulting twist is of the same form as Equation (15), except that the presence of the n turns implies that the term 2π in the last bracket is replaced by 2nπ, and also the angles θ x and θ y now refer to angles Z A Z and Z D Z in Figure 8. Thus, the net twist becomes Φ ER = Φ RF 2 Φ Z FZ 2 2FF Z(θ x θ y 2nπ) FER 2. (23) If, as an example, we adopt the typical values F = F Z, θ x = θ y = π/2, and Φ R = 2π, then Φ ER = Φ Z (n1)π, (24) 4 so that the net twist is roughly a quarter of the initial twist plus (n1)/2 turns. The number of turns is determined by the number of zippettes, which depends on how far the ribbons extend along the polarity inversion line and so how much magnetic flux is contained within them. In other words, n = F ribbon F R, (25) where F R is the magnetic flux of the new flux rope (A in Figure 8) and F ribbon is the magnetic flux in one of the flare ribbons when it is first fully formed SOLA: Zipper.MainPhase.tex; 27 July 2018; 10:04; p. 19